Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 181 posts

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#61

Post by throwaway7312 »

sailfast wrote: post #30

> Water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That reflects the median of possible warming scenarios 2 feet is the median!? And things continue to accelerate? I thought I followed climate change issues but somehow did not know that in most people's lifetimes sea levels will rise multiple feet. I would've thought folks would be more... concerned? The maps of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut look lik…

> I thought I followed climate change issues but somehow did not know that in most people's lifetimes sea levels will rise multiple feet. I would've thought folks would be more... concerned?

According to Sir David King (head U.K. climate scientist) in 2004, all continents other than Antarctica will be uninhabitable by 2100 due to manmade global warming.[1]

I wouldn't be worried about New York. I'd be on the next ship down to Antarctica to go stake my land claim right now before it all gets gobbled up.

I mean, if this manmade global warming stuff is real, and it's as bad as they say it is.

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20100817023019/http://www.indepen...

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#62

Post by lostapathy »

mikey_p wrote: post #37
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a no-brainer? In Seattle, first you have to get to the airport. Sea-Tac isn't exactly in Seattle. Depending on where you're coming from, King Street may be easier to reach. Then there's the bit about arriving at the airport 2 hours before, in order to pass through security. Yeah, you can probably cheat on the two hours, depending on how long security lines tend to be at Sea-Tac. Still, it's a chunk of tim…

One major downside is that the schedule is very unpredictable between Portland and Seattle, due to right of way being preempted by freight traffic. It's not uncommon to have to pull into a siding and sit for 10-20 minutes several times. That said the comfort between train and air travel is night and day, you get much more space, plenty of outlets, room to get up and move around, purchase food and drinks, even if the…

How can the food be worse than airline food? I haven’t been on a flight in years that had anything other than prepackaged snacks available at any price.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#63

Post by dmckeon »

caymanjim wrote: post #49
CodeSheikh wrote: post #24

Blessing in disguise here for Amtrack and a great opportunity to do an overhaul of a subset of the one of the oldest railroad infrastructure in the USA. Many lessons we can learn from European counterparts.

It's not easy to move a rail line. It's politically and economically infeasible. Amtrak hugs the coast in the northeast in part because that land is useless for anything else. Much like the subways, bridges, tunnels, roads, and every other piece of transit infrastructure in the northeast, the rail problems are systemic and it's a huge effort just to keep things moving at all. This isn't a blessing; it's a snapshot of…

Amazing how most of the reactions equate “move” to “relocate to a different corridor” without offering the costs of “elevate the trackage in the same corridor”. Not cheap, to be sure, but avoids the land cost/urban planning morass of how to relocate major infrastructure.

While we’re at it, make the elevated passenger trackage be serious high-speed rail, instead of the max. 125mph (~200kph) it is now.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#64

Post by whatshisface »

munk-a wrote: post #53
freehunter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it. Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have d…

Companies can use their political influence to get other companies to change. This isn't happening today because everyone on Earth is happier when electricity and gas are cheaper, from the poorest consumer to the wealthiest executive.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#65

Post by rayiner »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #7
mikejulietbravo wrote: post #3

As a very frequent Amtrak rider, I’m pretty conflicted here. On one hand, climate change is bad. On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me.

> On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me. Why?

I commuted on Amtrak for two years between DC and Baltimore. The train was routinely 15 minutes late, and regularly 1 hour+. Destroying it might allow something else to be built in its place.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#66

Post by rayiner »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #28
13of40 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take…

Why is that a no-brainer? In Seattle, first you have to get to the airport. Sea-Tac isn't exactly in Seattle. Depending on where you're coming from, King Street may be easier to reach. Then there's the bit about arriving at the airport 2 hours before, in order to pass through security. Yeah, you can probably cheat on the two hours, depending on how long security lines tend to be at Sea-Tac. Still, it's a chunk of tim…

> Have I missed something?

Yes. Sitting for hours at the Amtrak station waiting for a delayed train to arrive.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#67

Post by bobthepanda »

caymanjim wrote: post #49
CodeSheikh wrote: post #24

Blessing in disguise here for Amtrack and a great opportunity to do an overhaul of a subset of the one of the oldest railroad infrastructure in the USA. Many lessons we can learn from European counterparts.

It's not easy to move a rail line. It's politically and economically infeasible. Amtrak hugs the coast in the northeast in part because that land is useless for anything else. Much like the subways, bridges, tunnels, roads, and every other piece of transit infrastructure in the northeast, the rail problems are systemic and it's a huge effort just to keep things moving at all. This isn't a blessing; it's a snapshot of…

Amtrak's long-term vision did involve moving away from the coast and swinging up future HSR via Hartford and western Massachusetts.

I say "did", because politicians from eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island were understandably not thrilled about losing their existing high-ish speed services.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#68

Post by lifeformed »

makerofspoons wrote: post #48
rfinney wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing charts that say otherwise: https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Figure%201.JPG . This suggests the models are not accurate. Who is right?

Certainly not the CEI's (Competitive Enterprise Institute) who distributed your figure. They have a long history of spreading disinformation, going back to the fight over tobacco policy: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_Enterprise...

I never understood why "climate skeptics" don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some "rebuttal" against climate change, the source comes back to a conservative think tank or oil company. Hello??? It's so frustrating.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#69

Post by azeotropic »

howard941 wrote: post #56
munk-a wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak is weirdly a company that will suffer from climate change and could actually start addressing it (they end up shipping the vast majority of coal and could at least tax the movement of that good to recoup this expense) but most companies that will be hit by the effects of climate change won't be significantly contributing to it. Industries that see ever more profit in fields with high externalities won't have d…

> they end up shipping the vast majority of coal You may be thinking of the entity that used to be known as Conrail. Amtrak is passenger only.

>could at least tax

GP may also be thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives. Amtrak has no power to levy taxes.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#70

Post by rfinney »

nfg wrote: post #57
rfinney wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing charts that say otherwise: https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Figure%201.JPG . This suggests the models are not accurate. Who is right?

There’s a good analysis of what seems to be the same chart (and more like it) here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/compar... TL;DR: it is using every trick in the book to mislead.

Every trick in the book?

https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-refere...

Who is right?

Post reply on HN